shorts are obviously getting more and more desperate.
and their own words are in total contradiction.
first they say there won't be a tender. then they tell you that mm has tendered his shares already. but how can that be if there is not going to be a tender. and then, of course, we're back to the ridiculous prediction that all shareholders won't be allowed to tender their shares. so shorts, which story do you want to stick with? no tender? tender already occurred, and mm tendered his shares? only insiders will get to tender their shares? HOW COME SHORTS NEVER MENTION THE LIKELIEST, MOST LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE? TENDER OCCURS AND ALL SH's GET TO TENDER THEIR SHARES !!! if that's not proof of desperation ......
BOTTOMLINE: THERE WILL BE A TENDER IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. SLMU HAS HIRED A LAW FIRM TO DO THE TENDER.
and what difference does it matter where they put the new company just purchased - SINCE ONCE THE TENDER OCCURS, ALL ASSETS MOVE OVER TO DSTI. my gut feeling why they put it in slmu for now - slmu owns 90% of eco (until the tender) - and eco is a major part of the new deal.